Mr T Okorodudu v Cordant Recruitment Ltd — 2021

Mr T Okorodudu worked for Cordant Recruitment Limited as an agency worker at Amazon, Bathgate from 10 May 2020 to 21 August 2020. He was due to be paid for his first week on or about 22 May 2020. The tribunal found that the payslip showed £370.88 due, less National Insurance of £22.55, but the payment was sent to an old Royal Bank of Scotland account previously used with another agency and not to the Monzo account details he had provided. The respondent said the error would be rectified, but it was not.

The tribunal held that the claim under section 23(1) ERA 1996 was well founded and that the failure to pay the wages on 22 May 2020 was a deduction contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. It found the amount of the deficiency to be £348.33 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum. The tribunal said the fact that payment may have been made to another account was irrelevant because the wages remained payable to the claimant in the account he had specified.

On time limits, the tribunal accepted that the claim was not presented within three months of 22 May 2020, but found that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Okorodudu to present it by then. He had been actively pursuing payment with the respondent and the bank, was unaware of the Employment Tribunal route and the 90-day limit until speaking to Glasgow Sheriff Court in mid-September 2020, and then acted within a reasonable period by contacting ACAS on 13 October 2020. The tribunal therefore accepted jurisdiction under section 23(4) ERA 1996, taking into account section 207B ERA 1996 and the principle in Marks and Spencer v Williams Ryan 2005 IRLR 562.

The tribunal did not treat the matter as a breach of contract claim because there was no evidence that Mr Okorodudu was an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996; it found he was engaged as a worker, which permitted the section 23 complaint but not a breach of contract claim under section 3(2)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It also declined to award any further compensation under section 24(2) ERA 1996. The claimant had sought additional sums said to relate to borrowing and to distress, but the tribunal found there was no evidence to substantiate those losses, no medical evidence was produced, and the distress heads were not financial loss within section 24(2).